remanded EB-2 NIW Case: Research

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: FEB. 27, 2024 In Re: 28423614 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as an 
individual of exceptional ability as well as a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement 
attached to this classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(2), 
8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the 
national interest. The matter is now before us on appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). While we conduct de novo review on 
appeal, Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015), we conclude that a remand 
is warranted in this case because the Director's decision is insufficient for review. The decision lacks 
analysis and discussion of the evidence in the record and reaches conclusory findings with respect to 
the Petitioner 's eligibility for the requested national interest waiver. Accordingly, we will withdraw 
the Director's decision and remand the matter for entry of a new decision consistent with the following 
analysis. 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification 
for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, as either an advanced degree professional or an individual 
of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. If a 
petitioner demonstrates eligibility as either a member of the professions holding an advanced degree 
or an individual of exceptional ability, they must then establish that they merit a discretionary waiver 
of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. While 
neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," Matter ofDhanasar, 
26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver 
petitions . Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of 
discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: 
1 See also Poursina v. USCIS, No. 17-16579, 2019 WL 4051593 (Aug. 28, 2019) (finding USCIS ' decision to grant or 
deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
• The individual is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the requirements of a job offer and a labor certification would 
benefit the United States. 
The Director found that the Petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an advanced 
degree. The Director determined, without discussion of the submitted evidence, that the Petitioner did 
not meet his burden to establish the substantial merit and national importance of his proposed 
endeavor. 
In the Director's decision, she briefly described the Petitioner's proposed endeavor. In regard to 
national importance, the Director stated that the "record does not establish that the petitioner's work, 
alone, would impact the field more broadly, as opposed to being limited to researches [sic] and per 
[sic] reviews of his work," and found that his "teaching activities do not meet the first prong of the 
Dhanasar framework." However, the Director does not explain why the submitted evidence was 
determined to be insufficient to meet the first prong under the framework established in Dhanasar. In 
addition, the Director did not address the "substantial merit" element of the first prong. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director's decision does not explain the specific reasons for 
denial, noting the lack of clarity regarding the Director's statements of the Petitioner's "work" rather 
than his "proposed endeavor." Further on appeal, the Petitioner notes that the proposed endeavor is 
not teaching, as indicated by the Director, but rather instead will entail research. The Petitioner also 
contends that the Director did not specifically discuss any of the evidence submitted with the petition 
and in response to the request for evidence. 
We agree with the Petitioner's assertion that the decision is deficient. An officer must fully explain 
the reasons for denying a visa petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(i). Furthermore, a decision denying a 
benefit must include the specific reasons for denial and sufficiently explain the underlying deficiencies 
to allow a petitioner a fair opportunity to contest the decision and to allow us an opportunity for 
meaningful appellate review. See, e.g., Matter ofM-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786 (BIA 1994) (finding that 
the reasons for denying a motion must be clear to allow the affected party a meaningful opportunity 
to challenge the determination on appeal). Here, the decision did not meet these requirements. 
In evaluating the Dhanasar' s first prong on remand, the Director should analyze the evidence and 
conclude whether the Petitioner's endeavor has substantial merit. The endeavor's merit may be 
demonstrated in a range of areas such as business, entrepreneurialism, science, technology, culture, 
health, or education. The Director should also analyze the evidence and conclude whether the 
Petitioner's endeavor has national importance. Dhanasar provided examples of endeavors that may 
have national importance, as required by the first prong, having "national or even global implications 
within a particular field, such as those resulting from certain improved manufacturing processes or 
medical advances" and endeavors that have broader implications, such as "significant potential to 
employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an 
economically depressed area." Id. at 889-90. As to the third prong of the Dhanasar analytical 
framework, on remand, the Director should address all the Petitioner's arguments and evidence, and 
explain the relative decisional weight given to each balancing factor. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(i); see 
also Matter of M-P-, 20 I&N Dec. 786 (BIA 1994) (finding that a decision must fully explain the 
2 
reasons for denying a motion to allow the respondent a meaningful opportunity to challenge the 
determination on appeal). 
For the above reasons, we will withdraw the Director's decision and remand this matter for farther 
consideration and entry of a new decision. On remand, the Director should review the entire record, 
including the Petitioner's appeal, and determine whether he has established eligibility for each of the 
three prongs of the Dhanasar framework. The Director may request any additional evidence 
considered pertinent to the determination prior to issuing a new decision. 
ORDER: The Director's decision is withdrawn. The matter is remanded for the entry of a new 
decision consistent with the foregoing analysis. 
3